• Home
  • Mission
  • Federalist Papers
  • Foundation
  • U.S. Constitution
  • Bill of Rights

Federalist Press | Defending Liberty — Informing America

Breaking News and Political Commentary

  • All Stories
  • Economy
  • Elections
  • Entitlement
  • Ethics
  • Foreign
  • Gender
  • Religion
  • Sci-Tech

Iran Puts Five Christians on Trial for Their Faith

March 11, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Five Iranian Christian converts who were detained late last year will reportedly begin trial in Iran’s Revolutionary Court this week, according to a human rights group following the case.

Iran_ChristiansThe five men were among seven arrested in October when security forces raided an underground house church in the city of Shiraz during a prayer session. They will be tried at the Revolutionary Court in Shiraz’s Fars Province on charges of disturbing public order, evangelizing, threatening national security and engaging in Internet activity that threatens the government, according to Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a religious persecution watchdog group.

“Judging from recent cases, it is likely that, at the very least, those detained may face lengthy prison sentences,” said CSW spokesperson Kiri Kankhwende.

According to Kankhwende, the crackdown against Christian converts and house churches parallels a general increase in repression against many, including journalists, religious and cultural minorities and others as the government is leading up to June’s presidential elections.

The five imprisoned men, Mohammad Roghangir, Surush Saraie, Eskandar Rezaie, Shahin Lahooti and Massoud Rezaie are members of the Church of Iran denomination, one of the country’s largest house church movements.

“There has been a noticeable increase in the harassment, arrests, trials and imprisonments of converts to Christianity, particularly since the beginning of 2012,” Kankhwende said. “Any movement that differs from or offers an alternative to orthodox Shia Islam, and any persons who chooses to follow an alternative belief system, are interpreted as a challenge to the very state itself.”

The underground church network has been rapidly growing in Iran as a place where converts from Islam to Christianity can pray as they are forbidden to attend services at formal churches.

Alongside the growing network of home churches has been the increase in violent crackdowns and raids on these communities and arrests made on Christian converts, among them the internationalized case of Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, held for almost three years on charges of apostasy and more recently American Pastor Saeed Abedini who is currently serving an eight-year sentence for evangelizing and threatening national security.

“House churches are growing because the converts have nowhere else to go,” said Tiffany Barrans, international legal director at the American Center for Law and Justice,

“When you’re a convert to Christianity in Iran, you can’t go worship at the church on the corner, because conversion is not acceptable. If they were allowed to go to an official place of worship, there wouldn’t be a house church movement,” Barrans said.

“Essentially they have created the house church problem and now use it to persecute its own people.”

Barrans and the ACLJ are also the U.S.-based family attorneys for Pastor Saeed Abedini,  held in Iran’s notoriously brutal Evin prison since September 2012 as his wife and two young children fear for him at their home in Idaho.

More than a decade ago, Abedini worked as a Christian leader and community organizer developing Iran’s underground home church communities for Christian converts who are forbidden from praying in public churches. He was arrested in 2005, but released after pledging never to evangelize in Iran again. When he left his wife and two kids in Idaho last summer to return to Iran to help build a state-run, secular orphanage, Iranian police pulled him off a bus and imprisoned him.

After months of imprisonment without any notice of charges, Abedini was sentenced at the beginning of this year to eight years in prison, as his family and attorneys continue to pressure the State Department and other public and private groups to facilitate his release.

Under Shariah, or Islamic law, a Muslim who converts to Christianity is on a par with someone waging war against Islam. Death sentences for such individuals are prescribed by fatwas, or legal decrees, and reinforced by Iran’s Constitution, which allows judges to rely on fatwas for determining charges and sentencing on crimes not addressed in the Iranian penal code.

All religious minorities in Iran, including Bahais, Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians, have faced various forms of persecution and political and social marginalization throughout the regime’s 30-year reign. But the government saves its harshest retribution for those who have abandoned Islam.

By Lisa Daftari / Published March 11, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Ethics, Foreign, Religion

Hundreds of Christians Clash with Pakistani Police after Homes Burned by Muslim Mob

March 10, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

LAHORE, Pakistan –  Hundreds of Christians protesting the burning of their homes by a Muslim mob over alleged blasphemous remarks made against the Islam’s Prophet Muhammad clashed with police on Sunday in eastern and southern Pakistan.

Around 150 people have been arrested for setting dozens of Christian houses on fire in the eastern city of Lahore after a non-Muslim was accused of making offensive comments about the prophet, police said.

PakistanChristians across the country rallied against the incident, but the main demonstrations were in Lahore, the southern port city of Karachi, the capital, Islamabad, and the adjoining city of Rawalpindi.

The Christian demonstrators blocked a main highway in Lahore and police fired tear gas shells to disperse the protesters who demanded assistance from the government, said police official Malik Awais. He said the protesters damaged several vehicles, uprooted a fence along the road and burned an electricity generator.

Seven policemen were injured when the protesters pelted them with stones, he said. He said the police, who used tear gas and batons to disperse the crowd, detained six of the protesters.

Government spokesman Pervaiz Rasheed promised the government would help hem rebuild their houses, but the Christians expressed dissatisfaction with the way the government was handling the incident.

“I have been robbed of all of my life’s savings,” Yousuf Masih said, standing close to his burned house. He said the government’s announcement that it would give 200,000 rupees ($2,000) compensation to each family was a joke.

Awais, the police officer said, the protesters demanded the government raise the compensation amount from 200,000 rupees ($2,000) to 1 million rupees ($10,000).

In Karachi, more than 1,000 protesters blocked a road in a main market and damaged about 25 vehicles, said police officer Ali Raza. He said some of the protesters also attacked 10 shops and looted valuables and cash. He said the police beat back the protesters and fired tear gas shells to disperse them. At least two protesters were taken into custody, he said.

The protests are a response to an incident that began on Friday after a Muslim accused a Christian man of blasphemy — an offense that in Pakistan is punished by life in prison or death. On Saturday, a mob of angry Muslims rampaged through the Christian neighborhood in Lahore, burning about 170 houses.

The Christian man is in police custody pending an investigation into the allegations. Those who rioted are being investigated for alleged arson, robbery, theft, and terrorism, said police officer Abdur Rehman.

The Pakistani police usually arrest rioters to tamp down public anger, but those accused are rarely convicted and the law is often misused to settle personal disputes and rivalries.

Akram Gill, a local bishop in the Lahore Christian community, said the incident had more to do with personal enmity between two men — one Christian and one Muslim — than blasphemy. He said the men got into a brawl after drinking late one night, and in the morning the Muslim man made up the blasphemy story as payback.

Such accusations of blasphemy in the past have prompted huge crowds to take the law into their own hands. Once an accusation is made it’s difficult to get it reversed, partly because law enforcement officials and politicians do not want to be seen as being soft on blasphemers.

According to Human Rights Watch, there are at least 16 people on death row in Pakistan for blasphemy and another 20 are serving life sentences.

Last year, there was a rare reversal of a blasphemy case. A teenage Christian girl with suspected mental disabilities was accused of burning pages of the Quran. But she was later released after a huge domestic and international outcry about her treatment. A local cleric where she lived was arrested and accused of planting the pages in her bag to incriminate her, a rare example of the accuser facing legal consequences. However, he was later freed on bail.

Also on Sunday, a suspected U.S. missile strike killed a foreign militant who was riding on horseback in Datta Khel in North Waziristan, according to three Pakistani intelligence officials who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

Published March 10, 2013 / Associated Press

Filed Under: All Stories, Foreign, Religion

The “Mormon Effect”

February 22, 2013 By Editor 345 Comments

During the 2012 presidential campaign, that awesomely deep well of perpetual wisdom, Alec Baldwin, proclaimed that if Barack Obama were not black, his vote total would have been 20 percent higher.

mormon_templePeople of real intelligence realize that the opposite was probably true: if he had been white, his vote total would have been 20 percent lower. The African-American voting bloc combined with enough whites suffering from liberal guilt guaranteed a higher vote total for Obama.

The truth of the matter is, if Mitt Romney had not been a Mormon, his vote total might very well have been significantly higher.
In fact, according to a Gallop poll released in June of last year, while 4 percent of people said they would not vote for a black president, a full 22 percent said they would not vote for a Mormon. In fact, only atheists and gays ranked higher.

So Baldwin probably had it backwards, which he usually does, so that comes as no surprise.

What did come as a surprise to me is why people would have such negative views of Mormons. I have known lots of them in my life, and in most cases they have been hard-working, kind, generous family-oriented people—just the kind of people this country used to value (and maybe that’s the problem right there.)

Mormons have intrigued me ever since Mike Huckabee back in 2007 claimed that Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers. With the recent election over, I decided to check out Mormons a bit more.

My hope in doing this was to explain to readers who Mormons are and whether or not 22 percent of the people were justified in opposing having a Mormon president.

But instead I’m going to share an intriguing bit of Mormon theology I learned that I think makes them perhaps the most politically wise human beings on the planet. Ironically, this story stems from that Huckabee quote about the relationship between Jesus and the devil, but the lesson to be learned is one that, regardless of our political or religious views, we would all be wise to consider.

So here’s what I learned: Mormons, unlike most other Christian sects, believe that all humans lived a life before mortality. They call this the pre-existence or pre-earth life. At birth a veil is placed over our minds so that we don’t remember it (you’ll see why in a minute).

In this pre-earth life, we were all in the presence of God as His spirit children. Jesus was there—the first-born of God’s spirit children, and a leader in the councils in Heaven. Lucifer was also there, and was another leader among the children of God. He was called a “son of the morning.”

At some point in this existence, the Father called all of His children together to explain how things worked. All of His children would have to leave His presence and come to earth for a period of testing. The goal was to see if we would live a righteous life even when we had to live by faith, as we would no longer be able to remember God or heaven (that’s the reason for the veil).

If we would live a righteous life, we would be given the opportunity to return and live with God forever. Otherwise we would forfeit that chance, because no unclean thing can live in God’s presence. However, God knew that we would all make mistakes, so he would provide a Savior for the world. This Savior would live a sinless life, and because of that, he would qualify to pay for the sins of the world through what would be called the “Atonement.” If people would sincerely repent of their sins, then the Atonement would essentially erase their sins, and they could still return and live with God. The Father called for volunteers to be this savior, and two stepped forward: Jesus and Lucifer.

mormon_conferenceLucifer said that he would be the savior and he would force everybody to live righteously, thus guaranteeing that all of God’s spirit children would return to Him in heaven [and he, Lucifer would receive all the credit/glory]. Jesus said that He would follow the Father’s plan and allow God’s children their free agency [and all the glory would go to God]. They could choose for themselves whether to live righteously and take advantage of the Atonement or whether to live in sin and forfeit the opportunity to return and live with God.

God rejected Lucifer’s plan, causing Lucifer to rebel and declare war on God. One-third of God’s spirit children joined Lucifer in this rebellion. In the end, the rebellion failed and Lucifer and his followers were cast out of heaven. They came to earth without bodies and now, continuing the war they started in heaven, they tempt men to do evil to one another and lose out on the chance to return to God. [Luke 10:18; Revelation 12:9; Isaiah 14:12]

PAY ATTENTION HERE; THIS IS THE GOOD PART

Now, any traditional Christians reading this will see similarities to their own belief system. Most traditional Christians believe that Lucifer lived in heaven as an angel, but then declared war on God and was cast out. However, the causes for that war are not necessarily clear in traditional Christian theology.

That is where Mormon theology is so intriguing. For Mormons, the greatest of all battles, the war in heaven, was fought over LIBERTY—or as they call it, “free agency.”Lucifer wanted to take it away, while God demanded that humans have it.

Although a Mormon might balk at my making comparisons between their religious beliefs and modern politics (and as I said earlier, every Mormon I’ve ever known was a very good person, so I apologize to any I offend), I see a direct correlation here. For a Mormon, the battle for liberty is not unique to this life; it is the core battle of the ages. Lucifer lost the war in heaven (he really thought he could beat God?), but the war continues on earth. So seeing the government become more and more tyrannical is not just a political concern; it’s a fundamental, eternal concern.

I’m inspired by this Mormon theological idea: God intended for humans to be free to make our own choices and live with the consequences of those choices. The Founding Fathers of this country said essentially the same thing in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evidence, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

My study of Mormonism has not only given me newfound respect for this people and their religion; it has also made me evaluate my own attitude towards the liberty that seems to be slipping through all of our fingers. Is this just something that is nice to have, and for which I thank the Founding Fathers? Or is it really something that is endowed by God, and that He expects me to fight for. According to Mormon theology, I already fought for this once. The fact that I’m here says that I was on God’s side in the war in heaven, and fought for liberty.

A Mormon might ask, why should any of us be less willing to fight for it here than we were there?

Reprinted from “SMART MORMONS,” By Mike Jensen, January 22, 2013

Readers of this story also find the following stories interesting:

This Easter Morning, Remember

What ‘NOAH’ Movie Gets Wrong, and Right

Christians: Marked For Extinction?

Harry Reid: Worst Human On Earth

British Court Dismisses Case Against LDS Church President

The Tree of Liberty is Dying—Is Civil War Coming?

Is Obama Targeting LDS Canneries?

Mormons and Progressivism: United Order vs. Socialism

The Spirit of Antichrist Permeates Our Nation

AdvertisementsNoah_Enoch_Flood_Ad2

 Let Scottsdale Multimedia write your book. The nation’s premier ghostwriters.>>

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Foreign, Gender, Religion

Mayan Apocalypse On December 21

December 19, 2012 By Editor Leave a Comment

Time is up!

If you’re worried about the end of the world arriving on December 21st, you’re not alone. Indeed, for years doomsday nutjobs have been bilking the gullible and frightening the simpleminded among us with their Mayan Calendar ruse.

On Friday at the precise moment of solstice (4:12 a.m. Mountain Standard Time), the Maya Long Count calendar will click over to read “13.0.0.0.0,” (pronounced “thirteen b’aktun”) for the first time in 5,125 years.  The 5,125 year cycle was significant for the Mayans, who were obsessed with numerology and the measurement of time.  Mayan priestly “day-keepers” built shorter calendar cycles into a Long Count, or 5,125-year period of time, which they projected backward to begin on August 11, 3114 B.C., the Mayan day of creation of the earth, and forward to the end of the world on December 21, 2012.

So what is the significance of the end of the Long Count calendar?

None, for us.

Are the Mayans worried? In fact, the Mayan empire, which created the end of the world myth, met its doom over a thousand years ago.  If they were good at predicting the end of something, why didn’t they predict that?

December 22 will arrive in good order; take our word for it. Don’t do anything stupid in the false belief that the world will end on the 21st. If you feel compelled to give away all of your belongings because you don’t think they’ll go with you when you beam up to the mothership, please send cash, stocks, bonds, and bullion to The Federalist Press.

PUBLIUS

 

Filed Under: All Stories, Religion

A Dark Spirit Broods Over Our Nation

December 14, 2012 By Editor Leave a Comment

school_shootingA few days ago a young Hispanic man from Portland, Oregon stole a semi-automatic rifle and went into a suburban shopping mall to kill as many people as he could. Coward.

Every few weeks or months a similar case occurs, with a psycho nobody who wants to become somebody, if only posthumously, who takes an armload of ammo into a public place where firearms are forbidden, and shoots as many of the innocent and defenseless as he can find. Coward.

Unfolding at this very minute is a similar incident, and authorities are reporting that at least 26 people, including 18 children, were killed this morning when a gunman opened fire inside a Connecticut elementary school.

America had gone from a nation of good people living under a Christian brotherly creed, to a nation of self-absorbed, self-centered, pleasure-seeking, thrill-seeking, lazy, indulgent, indolent slobs.

Our streets and homes are filled with people who care about no one and nothing but themselves, and they don’t care what their own foolishness or indolence costs those around them.  Gimme, gimme, gimme is their creed, and they’ve elected a president who has successfully tapped into that weakness.

Illegal drugs have gripped our nation’s youth for decades, and turned our streets and minority neighborhoods into war zones. Immorality and infidelity has overtaken our national belief in a Creator, and His eminence in our culture and lives. Yet we are told that we must accept the different lifestyle choices of those who are unlike ourselves, and suffer the incursions into our society by the diversity of others.

With much of our nation unemployed due to the policies of those who have fundamentally transformed our country, culture and society, sitting on couches playing video games that promote wandering the streets to murder those they encounter, is it any wonder that we have mindless zombies roaming our streets?

At some point decent, hard-working Americans are going to have to make a choice to take back their streets, take back their lives, and take back their government, and forcefully put down the rebellion of darkness and evil that now overshadows this once-great nation.  For me and mine, that day is today.  We will begin to take our weapons with us, even where the signs tell us they are not welcome.  If we encounter a shooter trying to make a name for himself, we will ensure that he gets no more than a single bullet off before the wrath of the righteous is felt in his bowels.  This is the day we begin to root out this evil.

Are there any decent people left out there?  If so, this would be a good time to speak up.

PUBLIUS

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Ethics, Religion

Should GOP Rethink Abortion Policy?

November 29, 2012 By Editor Leave a Comment

Following one of the worst performances for an American president in this nation’s history, Americans awarded Barack Obama a second term. What was the pitch from the far left that got him re-elected following four years of economic upheaval and government socialization of the medical industry?

The winning formula was 1) convincing voters that an honest business genius who had turned around the failing Olympics and the State of Massachusetts in short terms and had served his fellow humans all his life without fanfare or recognition was a greedy and uncaring monster to be avoided at all costs; 2) that the government should be the only source of one’s hope for prosperity and happiness; and 3) that government supplied birth-control and abortion-on-demand are the only rights worth preserving.

There has been much armchair quarterbacking post-election, and we hear of many in the GOP wringing their hands as they contemplate a strategy to again gain the White House and Senate. Proposals such as caving in on tax increases, ala George “Read My Lips” Bush are bandied about. Or winning strategies like “go along to get along” are being trumpeted by the party’s old guard.

The Federalist Press suggests that the GOP consider adopting a democratic party long-term strategy. Indeed, democrats have exercised control of American government for much of the past 100 years by long-term planning—which became necessary following the beating they took in the Civil War and post-war reconstruction, as republicans freed the slaves and passed and enforced the civil rights amendments.

Democrats have had 4 simple strategies for reacquiring power. 1) Class warfare, promulgated by taxing citizens at different rates—taking from some and giving to others. 2) Spending escalation, making the government the provider of goodies. 3) Create dependent underclass by impoverishing minorities and opening borders, making over ½ of voters dependent on government handouts. 4) Re-educating population through leftist takeover of media and education systems, to believe that socialism is the fairest system of government.

It’s that simple. So, can the GOP learn anything from the left?  Perhaps, but these tactics are naturally repugnant to those who espouse personal liberty, so it is doubtful.

What is in the abortion issue that could help the GOP, if as polls indicate, it is minorities who are voting in extremely high percentages for Democrats? Let’s revisit the founding of the birth control and abortion movement, and see what is behind it.

Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, and like-minded racists, like Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf and Lothrop Stoddard, a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Margaret Sanger was an ardent proponent of sterilizing those she considered “unfit,” which would be the “salvation of American civilization.” Who was unfit? Those of African descent.

Margaret Sanger and her followers were the regents of Western Eugenics, the practice of improving the human gene pool by eliminating undesirable DNA. She and her associates admired the Aryan dreams of the Nationalist Socialists (Nazis) in Germany, and like their counterparts, thought that exterminating lower life forms (Jews, Blacks) was a service to God and country. For those who might doubt that the founder of Planned Parenthood held these beliefs, please refer to some of her many articles and speeches on the subject such as “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920), “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921), “The purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924), “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925), “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928), and many others.

Indeed, as a direct result of the Sanger movement, even today, American black children suffer death by the millions at the hands of abortionists. Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America, with 78% of their clinics in minority communities. Although blacks make up only 12% of the population, 35% of all the abortions in America are black babies.

So when it comes to the political parties’ struggle for dominance in America, where should the parties come down on the abortion issue? With Democrats clamoring for dependent minority voters, they should be the ones who immediately outlaw the practice of murdering minority babies.  They would have at least 13,000,000 more black voters on the rolls if they had not killed them all.

Where does that leave the GOP on the abortion issue? Should they embrace the practice of killing minority babies to purify the voting gene pool?

That’s right America. This is who we’ve become. Embrace the left.

PUBLIUS

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Gender, Religion

‘Islamization’ of Paris – a Warning to the West

November 1, 2012 By Editor Leave a Comment

Friday in Paris. A hidden camera shows streets blocked by huge crowds of Muslim worshippers and enforced by a private security force.

This is all illegal in France: the public worship, the blocked streets, and the private security. But the police have been ordered not to intervene.

It shows that even though some in the French government want to get tough with Muslims and ban the burqa, other parts of the French government continue to give Islam a privileged status.

An ordinary French citizen who has been watching the Islamization of Paris decided that the world needed to see what was happening to his city. He used a hidden camera to start posting videos on YouTube. His life has been threatened and so he uses the alias of “Maxime Lepante. ”

Lepante’s View

His camera shows that Muslims “are blocking the streets with barriers. They are praying on the ground. And the inhabitants of this district cannot leave their homes, nor go into their homes during those prayers.”

“The Muslims taking over those streets do not have any authorization. They do not go to the police headquarters, so it’s completely illegal,” he says.

The Muslims in the street have been granted unofficial rights that no Christian group is likely to get under France’s Laicite’, or secularism law.

“It says people have the right to share any belief they want, any religion,” Lepante explained. “But they have to practice at home or in the mosque, synagogues, churches and so on.”

Some say Muslims must pray in the street because they need a larger mosque. But Lepante has observed cars coming from other parts of Paris, and he believes it is a weekly display of growing Muslim power.

“They are coming there to show that they can take over some French streets to show that they can conquer a part of the French territory,” he said.

France’s Islamic Future?

If France faces an Islamic future, a Russian author has already written about it. The novel is called “The Mosque of Notre Dame, 2048,” a bestseller in Russia, not in France.

French publisher Jean Robin said the French media ignored the book because it was politically incorrect.

“Islam is seen as the religion of the poor people, so you can’t say to the poor people, ‘You’re wrong,’ otherwise, you’re a fascist,” Robin explained.

The book lays out a dark future when France has become a Muslim nation, and the famous cathedral has been turned into a mosque.

Whether that plot is farfetched depends on whom you ask. Muslims are said to be no more than 10 percent of the French population, although no one knows for sure because French law prohibits population counts by religion.

But the Muslim birthrate is significantly higher than for the native French. Some Muslim men practice polygamy, with each extra wife having children and collecting a welfare check.

“The problem of Islam is more than a problem of numbers,” said French philosopher Radu Stoenescu, an Islamic expert who debates Muslim leaders on French TV. “The problem is one of principles. It’s an open question. Is Islam an ideology or just a creed?”

“It doesn’t matter how many there are,” he aded. “The problem is the people who follow Islam; they’re somehow in a political party, which has a political agenda, which means basically implementing Sharia and building an Islamic state.”

In Denial or Fed Up

From the 1980s until recently, criticizing or opposing Islam was considered a social taboo, and so the government and media effectively helped Islam spread throughout France.

“We were expecting Islam to adapt to France and it is France adapting to Islam,” Robin said.

About the burqa controversy, one French Muslim man told a reporter that Europeans should respect Muslim dress. One Parisian woman wearing a headscarf said “the veil is in the Koran” and “we only submit to God and nobody else.”

But even if many government elites are in France are in denial over Islam, the people in the streets increasingly are not. Some have become fed up with what they see as the growing Islamization of France.

They’ve started staging pork and wine “aperitifs,” or cocktail parties in the street. They’re patriotic demonstrations meant to strike back against Islam.  Another national demonstration is planned for Saturday, Sept. 4.

A Warning to the West

The French parliament debated the burqa law in this year. Jean-Francois Cope, president of the Union for a Popular Movement political party, has a warning for the West and for America.

“We cannot accept the development of such practice because it’s not compatible with the life in a modern society, you see,” he said. “And this question is not only a French question. You will all have to face this challenge. ”

For more insight on the slide toward a post-Christian Western society, check out Dale Hurd’s blog Hurd on the Web. 

For more insight on ‘Islamization’ around the world, check out Stakelbeck on Terror.

Reprinted from CBN.com

By Dale Hurd, CBN News Sr. Reporter

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Foreign, Gender, Religion

Netanyahu Urges Americans to Vote for Romney

September 17, 2012 By Editor 5 Comments

In an unprecedented direct appeal to US voters on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged American voters to elect a president willing to draw a “red line” with Iran. Everyone with any understanding of the political landscape understands that this is an unmistakeable endorsement of Mitt Romney.

In our article on Saturday, Why Catholics and Jews Should Support Romney (September 15, 2012), we enumerated the many reasons why American Jews and Catholics should reject the blistering rebukes against their religious interests by President Barack Hussein Obama and embrace the GOP candidate, Mitt Romney. It turns out that the Israeli Prime Minister agrees.

Prime Minister Netanyahu bolstered his plea with comparisons of Tehran’s claims that its nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes to domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh, saying that it would be foolish to believe either one has honorable intentions while stocking up on components for WMDs.

Indeed, President Barack Hussein Obama has entirely ignored the many requests of America’s strongest ally in the Middle East since taking office, and has shown distinct and unmistakable favoritism for Muslims and Islamic extremists in the region. With more than 20 Muslim nations now storming America’s embassies, murdering our diplomats, and violently protesting our presence, many GOP leaders are drawing comparisons between the current administration and the similarly naive and flawed administration of President Jimmy Carter–who was overwhelmingly denied a second term by American voters for very similar reasons.

PUBLIUS

View full video:

 

 

http://www.centurysurvival.com
http://www. getrevolutionready.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Foreign, Religion

Why Catholics and Jews Should Support Romney

September 15, 2012 By Editor 4 Comments

President Barack Hussein Obama’s open war on Christianity was officially launched less than three months into his presidency on April 15, 2009, when he insisted that the gold “IHS” monograms for the name of Christ be covered up with black painted plywood in Gaston Hall at the Catholic church’s Georgetown University, where he delivered a speech on economics.

Since then Obama and his party have done everything in their power to undermine the Catholic Church’s moral stance on birth control and abortion — attempting to force Catholic institutions and people to accept the administration’s edicts about providing these morally abhorrent services (in the Catholic view) to employees and beneficiaries of their institutions and organizations.

Of course, Barack Obama has always been hostile toward Christianity, and Christian principles, championing anti-Christian causes like gay marriage (although he flipped against it for a few years to get elected, then recently flipped back to rally his base), abortion (which has eliminated tens of millions of American blacks from our population), the poverty and servitude of debt and the government dole, and general principles of immorality (yes, Christianity teaches virtue and honesty). Although he claims to be Christian, when it serves him, his professed brand of “Christianity” is a Black Liberation Theology, which has its roots in Marxism–an anti-Christian philosophy.

Obama has likewise taken draconian stands against one of America’s greatest allies — the State of Israel.  Earlier this week Obama snubbed Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — as he has done before. The president has thrown Israel and the Jewish people under the bus on several occasions during his first term in the White House, siding with Muslims on nearly every international issue — while they protest America and riot in nearly every nation, murder our diplomats, and spit in our face — yet American Jewish people continue to support his presidency.

So what is the appeal of a leftist president to American Jews? On paper, there should be none — Jewish people tend to be much more self-reliant and ambitious than most ethnic or religious minorities, and not a good prospect for the democratic siren’s song of the Rainbow Coalition. However, a quick look at American Jewish voting patterns demonstrate that they have supported every “progressive” candidate since Woodrow Wilson. The probable reason for their leftist bent is their countries of origin. Indeed, most Jewish people originated from socialist countries, and even the State of Israel was established as a socialist nation in its infancy. Add to this their persecuted status when they arrived in America, and the persecuted people outreach programs of the left during the 19th Century, and you end up with left-leaning multi-generational voters.

To a lesser extent, the left gathered American Catholics into their tent in the same way they did Jews and Blacks–all of whom they had persecuted and oppressed during the post-Civil War years (see our article True Champions of American Blacks, May 16, 2012), by first convincing them of their minority or non-normal status, and second, by offering them special protection in exchange for their sovereignty and their votes.

The time has come for Americans of every race and religion to come to the realization that selling their souls to the democratic party in exchange for empty promises has brought them nothing but disdain and reviling. It’s time for American Jews, Blacks, Catholics, Hispanics, Mormons, and every other category of citizen to realize that they are just Americans, without hyphenation or special status. Selling one’s soul to the devil never works out the way he promised.

PUBLIUS

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Foreign, Religion

DNC Boos God

September 9, 2012 By Editor 2 Comments

After resounding and widespread criticism for rewriting the Democratic Party platform to eliminate all mentions of God, and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the White House sent a mandate to DNC leadership to reinsert the terms ASAP.

The Democratic Party, with the president at the helm, is seen by many to have become hostile toward Western religion in general, and Christianity specifically (see our article of May 28, 2012, Obama vs. The Catholic Church).

To help divert attention away from these hostilities, the duty fell to convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, to present the proposed amendments to the convention, which proposed the tepid language:

“we need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

and

“it is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.”

Upon requesting a voice vote on the amendments, Villaraigosa asked for the ayes, followed by the nos, and appeared shocked that the nos outweighed the ayes. He stopped reading the teleprompter at that point, which instructed him to announce that the ayes had won the motion by the required two-thirds majority, and stumbled into a second request for voice votes. Upon receiving a second resounding majority of nos, he asked for yet a third vote.

When the third vote was even louder in its opposition to the amendments, Villaraigosa read the teleprompter and said that in his opinion, two-thirds of the voters had said “aye.”

With this announcement boos and shouting protests erupted in the auditorium, denouncing the amendments to mention God and acknowledge Jerusalem.

PUBLIUS

Watch the video>>

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Religion

Liberal Terrorist Attack In DC

August 16, 2012 By Editor 2 Comments

America gets a good look at the face of tolerance. Yesterday a heavily armed liberal terrorist associated with the LGBT movement made his way into the headquarters of the pro-family, pro-life organization, Family Research Council (FRC), and opened fire when challenged by unarmed building operations manager, Leo Johnson.

Floyd Lee Corkins, a 28 year old volunteer affiliated with The DC Center for the LGBT Community, reportedly exclaimed, “I don’t like your politics,” before pulling his semi-automatic weapon from his backpack and shooting Johnson. Although Johnson was hit in the arm, he still attacked the terrorist and wrestled him to the ground and disarmed him before Corkins could gain access to the areas where dozens of FRC employees and volunteers worked. Corkins cried at that point, “Don’t shoot me, it was not about you, it was what this place stands for.”

Corkins’ backpack contained 50 rounds of ammunition and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches, accessories that Corkins apparently felt were appropriate to a terrorist attack on innocent, unarmed family people.

Leo Johnson is a hero for disarming the terrorist before he could carry out his mandate, force-feeding bullets and Chick-fil-A sandwiches to those who have the audacity to speak up for traditional morals and pro-family matters in America. Liberal groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center had recently dubbed the Family Research Council a “hate group,” which leftists call anyone who disagrees with their radical views.

Mainstream news outlets are doing their best to bury the story that one of their own has launched a terrorist attack on a peaceful, family centered organization just blocks from the White House.  He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named has similarly had precious little to say about the attack. The FBI has officially indicated the attack a terrorist hate crime.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is the only candidate to express appropriate concern:”There is no place for such violence in our society. My prayers go out to the wounded security guard and his family, as well as all the people at the Family Research Council whose sense of security has been shattered by today’s horrific events.”

America will be watching to see if this attack, like many others that have been tolerated by the liberal mainstream media and those who currently but temporarily run our national government, will go unreported and undenounced.

PUBLIUS

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics, Gender, Religion

The Western Pandemic of Islam

July 27, 2012 By Editor Leave a Comment

Islam is self-proclaimed to be “the religion of peace,” and in our uncompromising quest for political correctness we deny ourselves the merest observation that “they” may be different from “us” in any measurable respect. Indeed, as Muslims walk the streets of western countries they do so in relative equality, and to the extent they are polite and attempt to blend with the local populations, they are welcomed as fellow citizens of the world, and extended the hand of brotherhood.

Each of us is free (as of this writing) to see the world from his own view, and we would hope that true bigotry, religious or otherwise, would not be condoned in any civilized society. However, there is a growing elephant in the room, and at some point one of us is going to have to point it out and we will all have to discuss it.

The Federalist Press editors enjoy many connections with friends and associates in Europe, and for years have listened with growing concern as anecdotal stories of increasing troubles with Muslim immigrants have been shared. Political correctness has run completely amok in Europe, and leftist governments and their state controlled media are loathe to admit that Muslim immigrants have gotten the best of them.

Indeed, as Muslim populations swell in Western countries we find certain patterns emerging—patterns which we are beginning to see in the Western hemisphere as well.

As the emphasis on marriage and the traditional family in Western countries has diminished, and the practice of abortion has increased, native local populations have sputtered.

Few seem to understand that the Fertility Rate (FR) of most of Western Europe has fallen below 2.11—the point of sustainability. A rate of 1.8 is considered extremely difficult to recover from, and 1.3 is nearly impossible. At this rate a culture will simply fade to oblivion. As of 2008 these are the Fertility Rates of a few European nations: France-1.8; England-1.6; Greece-1.3; Germany-1.3; Italy-1.2; and Spain-1.1. The average FR in 31 European Union countries is 1.38.

So why is the population of Europe growing so rapidly? Muslim immigration, and Muslim Fertility Rates.

For example, France’s FR of 1.8 is offset by the Muslim FR of 8.1. In fact, the south of France now has more Islamic Mosques than Christian churches. Also, 30% of its children under the age of 21 are Muslims, and the number climbs to 45% in large cities. At these rates, France will be an Islamic Republic within a generation.

In the Netherlands 50% of all newborns are Muslim, and in 10 years the population will approach 50% Muslim. These numbers hold true in Belgium as well.

England, where Muslim men were just discovered to be running sex slavery rings of local white girls, has seen a 30-fold increase in its Muslim population since 1970, and now has over 1,000 mosques.

There is a pattern to Muslim immigration into western countries. First, we see a wholesale drain on social services. In some publicized cases we find Muslim men collecting over $15,000 monthly from state welfare systems, receiving per capita stipends for each of their many children and wives (yes, wives). The social welfare systems of most chic EU members are depleted as a result, adding to the already heavily strained budgets that must pay out large pensions and benefits to union members who retired at young ages.

Then, these “peaceful” Islamic adherents tend to become more demanding and violent as their percentage of population grows in these countries, and leaders and agitators begin to demand “religious rights” (extended privileges and Sharia Law) for Muslims, occupying the streets or rioting and burning in protest.

Are western alarmists the only ones who see an imminent takeover of the West?

“There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists, we don’t need homicide bombers. The fifty-plus million Muslims there will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.” Muammar Gaddafi.

Perhaps Americans can afford complacency, many seem to believe. In fact, Canada, with its FR of 1.6, has had an increase in its population of over 2,000,000 in this past decade. How is that possible? Muslim immigration and FR.

What is America’s FR? It is down to a nearly unrecoverable 1.6. However, with the rapid Latino influx, our combined FR is 2.11—the bare minimum required to sustain a population, albeit a changing one. How about America’s Muslim population, you ask? In 1970 it was 100,000. Since then, it is difficult to tell, because the government doesn’t track them very closely (it’s not PC), but they tell us it is somewhere between a few million and 9,000,000.

Muslims are indeed beginning to become extremely vocal about demanding their “religious rights” in America. Demands for Sharia Law and examples of honor killings are springing up all around us. Liberal PC is enabling the behavior. We have witnessed that if Bill O’Reilly merely mentions on The View that it was Muslims who attacked Americans on 9/11 there is an orchestrated and exaggerated protest exodus of the hosts to enforce their PC speech limits—thus ensuring that no practical discussion occurs about safety or self-preservation.

With the rise of militant Islam in the West, it is time for a serious discussion on the direction we want our nations to take. If we do not make some tough, non-PC decisions soon, our granddaughters will be wearing burkas and will be stoned to death in the streets for whispering the name of Jesus. The current talk of gay marriage will be reduced to public beheadings for homosexuality. This is not speculation, but a mathematical certainty. If we continue at the current rate, Muslims will become the majority populations in all Western countries, and guess how they’ll vote. Violence that invariably attends Islam will be widespread, filling our streets, just as it does every day in countries with majority Muslim populations.

Of course, the liberal sophist will scoff publically at such an assertion; but one day in the streets of a majority Muslim population is all the proof needed to support it.

To those truly peace loving practitioners of Islam who live among us, and who refuse to follow their Eastern leaders into paths of Jihad, Dar-es-Salaam, Sharia, and cleansing violence, we encircle you in arms of brotherhood and welcome you as fellow-citizens. But we are at the point where we need to receive extremely clear declarations of peace and non-violence from any Muslim that seeks a place among us. To blindly pretend that a rogue elephant is not standing in the middle of the room is a foolish and dangerous path.

PUBLIUS

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Foreign, Religion

Gay Confession – Loving The Straight Life

June 10, 2012 By Editor 6 Comments

Reprinted from The Weed:

Club Unicorn: In which I come out of the closet on our ten year anniversary

Hi guys.

Lolly and I are sitting by a pool in the blazing sun, tanning our Seattle-white skin. We are having the time of our lives. Our kids are being watched by their Aunt Kati and Uncle Blake while we relax, celebrating ten incredible years of marriage.

And, side by side, we are finishing the final details of this post which we have written together over the course of the last month.

This is a different post than what you’re used to seeing here on The Weed. If you are here to laugh and read something light-hearted and fun, you probably want to skip this one. It’s long. And it’s serious. And I won’t be offended by anyone who decides to wait until things get light-hearted again.

This is the post where I tell you that I, Josh Weed, am homosexual.

I need to clarify a couple of things.

First, I think it’s important to clarify that although The Weed is a humor blog, this post is not a joke. This isn’t satire. This is not aimed to get laughs. I promise. This is completely serious, and it is us being completely real and genuine on a subject that is very personal and very dear to our hearts.

Second, I need to clarify that this post is written from the standpoint of a devout, believing Mormon and addresses topics seen within the Mormon and broader Christian community. Please forgive us if our focus feels unfamiliar, or feels totally incongruent with the rest of the posts on this blog.

I guess the premise of this post is to share that not only am I homosexual, but I’m also a devout and believing Mormon. And that I’m very happily married to a woman, and have been for ten years now.
And for the first time, we’re talking about it publicly.

When we do tell people about this—and we’ve been telling a lot of people lately, so we’ve gotten really practiced at it—they usually have a lot of really good, genuine questions. Here are some of the questions we’re most frequently asked (there really should be an acronym for that—I know! I’ll call it a FAQ!). We hope answering these questions will help you understand how we make sense of this delicate and complicated issue in our lives.

1. Why have you decided to share this information?

We have several reasons for opening up about this part of our lives. First and foremost, my clinical work as a therapist is taking me in the direction of helping clients who struggle to reconcile their sexual orientation with their religious beliefs. I have decided to be open with these clients about my own homosexuality, and in doing so have opened the door to people finding out about this in ways I can’t control. Therefore, we thought it would be wise to be the ones who told those we love about this part of our lives. Posting on the blog was the simplest way to make sure that happened as it would be impossible to sit all of the people we have known and loved in our lives down and share this personally.

The second reason is that the issue of homosexuality is not very well understood. We wanted to add our voice and experience to the dialogue taking place about this very sensitive issue.

Thirdly, I (Josh) feel the desire to be more open regarding this part of my identity. I have found that sharing this part of me allows my relationships with others to be more authentic. It has deepened my friendships and enhanced my interactions, and it has also helped me to feel more accepted by others as it allows others the opportunity to choose to accept me for who I really am.

2. What do you mean when you say you’re “gay”?

When I say I am gay or homosexual or same-sex attracted (and I use these terms interchangeably, which is a personal decision) I refer specifically to sexual orientation. I am sexually attracted to men. I am not sexually attracted to women. It is very simple. I have many, many years of experience which confirm this to be true, but it’s really as simple as what a girl asked me* in junior high—and I’m sorry if this is a little blunt, but I’ve never found a question that cuts to the heart of the matter more effectively— “so, if everyone in this room took off their clothes, would you be turned on by the girls or the guys?” My answer, which I didn’t say out loud, was unquestionably the guys. And it was unquestionably not the girls. And that still is my answer. It’s really not very complicated. Most people just don’t think about their sexual orientation because they don’t have any reason to.

*Why did a girl ask me that question in junior high? Because a bully actively spread a rumor around the entire school that I was a “woman trapped in a man’s body.” This was unbelievably horrific and traumatizing, and I was harassed every single day about it, often by perfect strangers. I was more effeminate, played the violin, didn’t play sports, was never interested in girls and didn’t hang out with guys, and so people glommed onto that rumor and ruthlessly harassed me for the entire year, culminating in a yearbook filled with breathtakingly insensitive taunts. Being the gay kid is really, really hard in junior high. If you know a gay kid in junior high, give them a hug and tell them you love them. I assure you they could use it.

3. When did you know you were gay?

I knew I was gay when I was 11 or 12. That’s the onset of puberty, when humans begin to feel sexual attractions. For a little while I was waiting for the attraction to girls to set in because that’s what everyone said would happen, but then there was a sinking moment of realization—a thought like “oh, this thing for guys is its replacement.” I told my parents shortly thereafter, when it seemed pretty clear that my sexuality wasn’t playing a trick on me, and the girl thing wasn’t going to happen, but the guy thing was totally happening. I was 13 when I told my dad (a member of the Stake Presidency—which is a lay leader in the Mormon church—at the time). My parents were incredibly loving and supportive, which is part of why I believe I’m so well adjusted today. They deserve serious props for being so loving and accepting—I never felt judged or unwanted or that they wished to change anything about me. That’s part of why I have never been ashamed about this part of myself. (I feel plenty of shame about other irrational things, like the fact that I can’t catch a ball or change a tire (as you may have noticed on the blog)—and I’m working on that stuff because toxic shame isn’t a good thing. But I’ve never been shameful about who I am, or about this feature of me as a critical part of my person, which it is in the same way that sexuality is a critical part of any person.)

4. If you’re married to a woman, how can you really be gay?

This is a really good question and I can see how people can be confused about it. Some might assume that because I’m married to a woman, I must be bisexual. This would be true if sexual orientation was defined by sexual experience. Heck, if sexual orientation were defined by sexual experience, I would be as straight as the day is long even though I’ve never been turned on by a Victoria’s Secret commercial in my entire life. Sexual orientation is defined by attraction, not by experience. In my case, I am attracted sexually to men. Period. Yet my marriage is wonderful, and Lolly and I have an extremely healthy and robust sex life. How can this be?

The truth is, what people are really asking with the above question is “how can you be gay if your primary sex partner is a girl?” I didn’t fully understand the answer to this question until I was doing research on sexuality in grad school even though I had been happily married for almost five years at that point. I knew that I was gay, and I also knew that sex with my wife was enjoyable. But I didn’t understand how that was happening. Here is the basic reality that I actually think many people could use a lesson in: sex is about more than just visual attraction and lust and it is about more than just passion and infatuation. I won’t get into the boring details of the research here, but basically when sex is done right, at its deepest level it is about intimacy. It is about one human being connecting with another human being they love. It is a beautiful physical manifestation of two people being connected in a truly vulnerable, intimate manner because they love each other profoundly. It is bodies connecting and souls connecting. It is beautiful and rich and fulfilling and spiritual and amazing. Many people never get to this point in their sex lives because it requires incredible communication, trust, vulnerability, and connection. And Lolly and I have had that from day one, mostly because we weren’t distracted by the powerful chemicals of infatuation and obsession that usually bring a couple together (which dwindle dramatically after the first few years of marriage anyway). So, in a weird way, the circumstances of our marriage allowed us to build a sexual relationship that is based on everything partners should want in their sex-life: intimacy, communication, genuine love and affection. This has resulted in us having a better sex life than most people I personally know. Most of whom are straight. Go fig.

5. Did your wife know you were gay when you married her?

Yes. I told Lolly about my homosexuality when I was 16 and we were on a date. In fact, I recently just wrote a humor post about that day. Here it is: vomit—a story of romance. That may have been the most important day (and was definitely the most important date) of my life. Everything I have in life that I cherish—the love of my life, my career, my education, coming home to three beautiful daughters screaming “Daddy, daddy!” with glee—hinged on that fateful day at Pizza Hut, and on a wonderful girl who was compassionate and open-minded and willing to listen to a young gay kid who was lonely and desperate for a soft landing place and to be heard.

Well…  I’ve actually published an essay which tells the whole story in an anthology published by Deseret Book. Here the book is, if you’re interested:

The book was compiled by my friend Ty Mansfield, and my essay is called “An Unlikely Gift” under my old pseudonym, Jason Lockhart. For this post, we’ve had Lolly tell our story below.

In fact, let’s do her question next:

6. Why would your wife choose to marry someone who is gay?

Hey guys. I never thought that the first guest post I wrote on “The Weed” would be talking about how I fell in love with gay Weed. But I definitely want to share my part of our story. So, here it goes.

I have known Josh and loved him for a very, very long time. We met when we were very small children. We lived on the same street in Utah and his dad was my Bishop (ecclesiastical lay-leader of an LDS congregation). When we were younger, we were acquaintances. In junior high we started eating lunch together and grew to be friends. I found him amusing and I enjoyed being around him.

After 9th grade, my family moved to Portland, Oregon. I thought of Josh Weed occasionally but never did anything about it until his family moved to the same city in Oregon two years later. We both thought it would be fun to reconnect, so we went on our first date.

And that is when Josh told me that he was gay. I was the first person he told, aside from his own parents. I will never forget the look on his face during the first moments of that conversation. From that look, I knew that he was feeling extremely vulnerable in what he had just shared and that what he was dealing with was very hard and very real for him.  Knowing Josh’s beliefs in our church, the first question that came to my mind was “What are you going to do about it?”

We talked at length that night about the reality of being gay in the Mormon Church.  He told me that he believed in the doctrine of the Church and that he wanted to do what God wanted him to do.  During the course of that conversation, my mind became overwhelmed by the complexities of the issue he was facing. And how alone he felt in facing them.

I was determined to be an ally and friend to him in regards to this issue.  I can’t even recall all of the conversations we had, but we spent hours and hours over the course of years hammering out what this issue meant in general and what it meant for him. Why was he gay? What did God expect him to do? Etc.

Josh’s commitment to God was so apparent to me as we discussed the choices ahead of him. My admiration and respect deepened immensely for him. We spent a lot of time together and I loved being with him. Our friendship grew and grew.  And I truly loved him. He told me that he wanted to go on a mission for the church and that he would also like to get married and have a family. I believed that those things were possible for him, but I never thought it would be with me.

The possibility of us becoming more than friends would come up every now and then, but I would dismiss it quickly. My parents did an amazing job in teaching their children about the proper role of sexuality. In our home, sex was viewed as sacred, enjoyable, and something to look forward to in marriage. I saw the important role that intimacy played in successful marriages and that was one aspect of marriage that I was greatly anticipating. Therefore, in my mind, marrying someone gay was completely out of the question.

I remember one conversation in particular in which Josh said, “If YOU won’t consider marrying me, then who will?” I responded with, “I’m sure there is someone out there for you. It’s just not me. Maybe you need to find someone who doesn’t care about sex.” He thought that line of thinking was wrong, but I couldn’t think of another solution for him.

Years continued to pass. Josh’s first year at college, he got a girlfriend. Who also happened to be my best friend.  I loved both of them very much and was very happy for them. Yet, something unexpected happened. I started to feel jealous. They ended up breaking up shortly after the semester ended, but the feelings of jealousy that I had experienced in regards to their relationship threw me off guard. I started to seriously examine my feelings for Josh.

In a moment of honest reflection, I realized that Josh was everything that I wanted in a husband. (All except for the huge fact that he was gay.) He was dedicated to God above all else and he loved his Savior deeply. He was kind, funny, sincere, honest and so much fun. I connected with him in ways that I did not connect with anyone else.  But he was gay. And I did not know if I could handle that in a marriage.

I ended up confessing my feelings to him on a random day on a whim. He admitted that he felt the same feelings for me. That I was everything he wanted in a wife. I had never been more excited or confused. We decided to try it out and to start dating. It was truly an amazing experience for both of us, falling in love with our best friend.

Before he left on his mission, I was still not sure if I could actually marry him. The intimacy factor was so important to me. During the course of dating, we held hands and kissed.  It was promising, but I didn’t know if our chemistry would be enough.

One day, we were having a conversation about our relationship. He simply said, “Am I worth it to you?” I wasn’t quite sure what he meant by that question. We then talked about how no one is perfect and how everyone deals with his or her own set of imperfections.  When you get married, you are accepting a person as a package deal—the good, the bad, the hard, the amazing and the imperfect.  He wanted to know if I loved the rest of him enough that I could deal with the realities that his homosexuality would bring to our marriage. I honestly could not answer him then.

Months passed and I was having a conversation with a good friend of mine. I said to her, “I can find someone else like Josh, right? Someone else to love like I love him?” She said, “You could find someone else to love, sure. But you will never have what you and Josh have with someone else. Because no one else is Josh.” When she said that, and I thought of loving someone else, I knew the answer to his question “Am I worth it?”

I knew that I loved Josh. I loved All of him. I wanted to marry him. I wanted to marry Josh Weed because I loved the man that he was. I loved everything that made him him. I didn’t want anyone else. I knew that we had the kind of relationship that could work through hard trials and circumstances. I had faith in him and I had faith in our love. I did not choose to marry someone who is gay. I chose to marry Josh Weed, the man that I love, and to accept all of him. I have never regretted it.

I love this man.

Okay, next question, and Josh will take over again. If you’re still reading, I’m impressed!

7. Why do you not choose to be “true to yourself” and live the gay lifestyle?

First of all, I understand that when people refer to a “gay lifestyle” they are talking about a lifestyle that includes gay romantic and sexual relationships. But I want to point out that because I am gay, any lifestyle I choose is technically a “gay lifestyle.” Mine just looks different than other gay peoples’. My hope is that other gay people will be as accepting of my choices as they hope others would be of their choices.

But that doesn’t really answer the question. And it is an important question.

One of the sad truths about being homosexual is that no matter what you decide for your future, you have to sacrifice something. It’s very sad, but it is true. I think this is true of life in general as well. If you decide to be a doctor, you give up any of the myriad of other things you could have chosen. But with homosexuality, the choices seem to be a little bit more mutually exclusive.  If you are Mormon and you choose to live your religion, you are sacrificing the ability to have a romantic relationship with a same-sex partner. If you choose a same-sex partner, you are sacrificing the ability to have a biological family with the one you love.  And so on. No matter what path you choose, if you are gay you are giving up something basic, and sometimes various things that are very basic. I chose not to “live the gay lifestyle,” as it were, because I found that what I would have to give up to do so wasn’t worth the sacrifice for me.  The things I wasn’t willing to part with were the following:

1. I believe the doctrine of the Mormon Church is true. One of the key doctrines of the church is that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” Another is that “children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.” These are things I personally believe. I also believe, and my experience has shown me time and time again, that when I follow the teachings that I know to be true my life is blessed and I find immense joy and peace. I feel that this joy and peace is a direct result of my connection to God’s spirit as a result of living in a way He approves of.

Deciding not to give this up–these profound spiritual beliefs that I feel in the deepest parts of my soul to be true–in favor of my sexual orientation required a great deal of faith, but I can honestly say that, for me, it has been completely worth it. I have not regretted the decision one day of my life. My life is filled with so much genuine, real, vibrant joy that I would be remiss if I didn’t thank God for blessing me for my obedience and adherence to His guidelines as I understand them. I love the Gospel of Jesus Christ as well as the Mormon Church, which I consider to be His restored organizational unit. I did not want to give that up.

2. I am a traditionalist at heart. I wanted a wife. I wanted to raise children that were biologically the product of me and the one I love. Thankfully, Lolly was willing to marry me, and we found ourselves able to conceive children. I have three incredible daughters. Every moment with them is true joy. Sometimes as I wrestle in the living room with them, or watch them eat cookies with chocolatey mouths and lots of giggles, or read them stories before tucking them into their beds, I’m filled with a sense of such joy that I almost feel bad to have such an incredibly fulfilling life. I often find myself in awe at how amazing my life is, and how lucky I am. And in my opinion, it was more than luck. I believe my joy stems from living the Gospel of Jesus Christ and trusting God and his plan for me even when it was really hard and scary.

3. I love Lolly Shea. (In my mind, she will always be Lolly Shea, the girl that I’ve known since I was three years old.) I want to be with her for the rest of my life. I want to grow old by her side. I wouldn’t trade her for any human on earth, male or female. She is my best friend, my lover, and my greatest gift. I love her with a love that is undeniable, and anyone that knows us can attest to the fact that our love is real, vibrant and very apparent. Besides my relationship with God himself, she is my everything and nothing that I ever do or receive in my life will ever compare to her and her love for me.

I find that when I think of what alternative lifestyles could offer me, they pale in comparison to the full, joyous, bounteous life I live. Thus, I believe that to live my life this way is being true to myself, and to go down any other path would be egregiously inauthentic and self-deceptive.

About two years ago, I saw a psychologist to get medication for my ADHD-I.  She was a lesbian, and when I told her that I was a gay man in a heterosexual marriage, she spent an entire session hammering me with questions about my situation in a genuine effort to make sure I was happy. I didn’t love that she did this, but as a clinician myself, I understood where she was coming from.

During our conversation, she told me about her life with her partner. She spoke of a girl, whom she considered her daughter, who is the biological child of her ex-lover, with whom she lived for only three years. She told me of how much she loved her daughter, but how infrequently she got to see her. And eventually, when talking about my sex life, she said “well, that’s good you enjoy sex with your wife, but I think it’s sad that you have to settle for something that is counterfeit.”

I was a little taken aback by this idea—I don’t consider my sex-life to be counterfeit. In response, I jokingly said “and I’m sorry that you have to settle for a counterfeit family.” She immediately saw my point and apologized for that comment. Obviously, I don’t actually think a family with non-biological members is counterfeit in any way. I also don’t feel that my sex-life is counterfeit. They are both examples of something that is different than the ideal. I made that joke to illustrate a point. If you are gay, you will have to choose to fill in the gaps somewhere. She chose to have a family in a way that is different than the ideal. I choose to enjoy sex in a way that is different than the ideal for a gay man. It all comes down to what you choose and why, and knowing what you want for yourself and why you want it. That’s basically what life is all about.

8. Should all gay people who are LDS or Christian choose to marry people of the opposite gender?

I want to make it very clear that while I have found a path that brings me profound joy and that is the right path for me, I don’t endorse this as the only path for somebody who is gay and religious. I will never, ever judge somebody else’s path as being “incorrect” and I know many people who have chosen different paths than myself.

I have two general recommendations:

1. If you know and love somebody who is gay and LDS (or Christian), your job is to love and nothing more. Let go of your impulse to correct them or control them or propel them down the path you think is right for them. Do what you need to do to move past that impulse.  Do not condemn the choices your loved one makes. Love. Only love. Show your love in word and deed. Embrace them, both literally and figuratively. I promise they need it—and they need to feel like they can figure out this part of themselves in a safe way without ridicule and judgment. It’s what Christ would do. It’s what your loved one needs. Accept them. Love them. Genuinely and totally.

If you are a parent or guardian, teach them what you know to be true in appropriate moments, with the Spirit. But then let go and let them govern themselves. Trust that they can find their own path. Let them live their life and have the experiences they need to learn and grow. Trust that they are in charge of their own agency and destiny. I promise you they will thank you. I also promise that pressuring them to live the life you want them to lead will only hamper their ability to make a genuine and authentic choice for their own future, be it what you hope for them or not. You will never, ever give your gay loved one a better gift than to love and accept them for who they are, right now, no matter what, period. The friends and family who did that for me (at varying points in my journey, including very recently) are cherished and will go down in the history of my life as the people that truly loved me, and as true Christians who helped me on my path. (And, btw, some of them are not technically even Christian—but to me are like Christ in their actions.)

2. If you are gay and Mormon (or Christian), I want you to know how much love I feel for you, and how much I admire you. I know how hard it is to be where you are. I want you to do me a favor. I want you, right now, to take a deep breath, look in the mirror, and accept yourself as you are in this very instant. You are you. And your attractions are part of you. And you are totally okay! I promise. I want you to stop battling with this part of you that you may have understood as being sinful. Being gay does not mean you are a sinner or that you are evil. Sin is in action, not in temptation or attraction. I feel this is a very important distinction. This is true for every single person. You don’t get to choose your circumstances, but you do get to choose what you do with them.

I want you to know that God loves you, and that even though you are attracted to people of the same gender, you are a completely legitimate individual, worthy of God’s love, your family’s love, and the love of your friends. You are no more broken than any other person you meet. You are not evil. You are a beautiful child of God. Please don’t be ashamed. Know that you can be forgiven for any mistakes you have made, and that God is not judging you. He loves you. Turn to him. He has a plan specifically for you. He wants you to be happy, and he will take you by the hand, and guide you step by step to where you need to be if you trust Him. He is not angry with you, and He knows you completely, every part, even the parts you wish you could keep hidden. He knows it all, and he still loves you! He couldn’t love you any more, and he is proud of you for your courage. I wish you could know of my sincerity as I write these words, and how deeply I feel compassion for you.

Conclusion (finally?)

You might be having an emotional reaction of some kind to this post. We want you to know that that’s okay.

Perhaps you’re someone that has never met a person that is gay whose opinion you trust, and are having trouble believing that a man or woman could actually be sexually attracted to their same gender. Perhaps it’s hard for you to accept the idea that people do not choose to be gay because it has helped you to understand this issue to assume that it is a matter of choice. It’s okay if you feel that way.

Perhaps it is hard for you to believe that a man who regularly has sex with a woman could actually be a homosexual who has chosen to live with a woman he loves, and that there’s no way I could feel what I claim to feel. It’s okay if you feel that way.

Perhaps you are someone who has been affected by a loved one who is gay and got married to a person of the opposite gender under false pretenses and then left his or her family, and your feelings are raw, and this post makes you feel feelings of anger because you worry that anybody in these circumstances is in for an eventual rude awakening and horrible consequences. Perhaps it even makes you feel deeper pain and loss than you already do to imagine that while this type of marriage didn’t work for you or for someone you love, it is working well for someone else, and so it’s easier to dismiss our story as something that is bound to fail. It’s okay if you feel that way.

Perhaps you are someone who has trouble believing a Mormon or Christian could actually be gay, so this post is difficult for you to take at face value. It’s okay if you feel that way.

Perhaps you are someone who is gay, and you once had desires to have a family with biological children of your own, but you gave that dream up long ago, and so now you feel challenged by the idea that doing so is a possibility for you, which makes you resistant to accept that what we are saying could be true—and maybe that makes you angry or upset that we would even suggest this is possible for those who want it. It’s okay if you feel that way.

Perhaps you have had none of these emotions and are totally supportive. Maybe you are even excited to see this being talked about so openly. Or perhaps you have felt something entirely different than anything mentioned.

Wherever you find yourself in your emotions, know that it is okay to feel what you are feeling. This issue is a very complex one and a very emotional one.

But this is a moment where whatever your feelings on the subject may be, you are reading the words of a real live person who is telling the truth. I am not lying to you right now. I have no reason whatsoever to share this with you besides to add a voice to the global discussion so that someone who might feel hopeless and lonely and devoid of role models or voices to trust can find all the information about their options available. I do so at great risk. I do so in spite of probable backlash from people I know as well as perfect strangers. I do so knowing that I will be misunderstood and possibly maligned—called a fraud, and told that my most intimate relationships are a sham. That I might be called Satanic, or told that I am the epitome of self-deception.

But the reason I do this is because I love you, whoever you are, and I want to share my situation so that you can know further truth: I am gay. I am Mormon. I am married to a woman. I am happy every single day. My life is filled with joy. I have a wonderful sex life. And I’ve been married for ten years, and plan to be married for decades more to come to the woman of my dreams.

All of these things are true, whether your mind is allowing you to believe them or not.

There are too many voices of dissent. There are too many voices saying that what I’m doing with my life is impossible. There are too many voices saying I don’t exist. Saying that I am a mirage, or a fake, or an impossibility. And Lolly and I have had our ten wonderful years of isolation, where we have enjoyed the goodness of our love and our life together in private. We have had chances to come out before in loud ways—we’ve been featured anonymously in news stories, been invited to be on radio interviews and documentaries, and were even asked to be on a national talk show. But it wasn’t time. We needed to have those years—ten wonderful years to ourselves, to live outside of any scrutiny, and just be ourselves.

But now we know that it’s time for us to share, and begin a new phase of openness and authenticity. We aren’t sure why, but we both know, without question, that this is what we are supposed to do. Maybe somebody needs to hear our story. Maybe you are that somebody. If so, thank you for reading, and thank you for letting us share this intimate piece of our lives with you.

If you are someone we know in person, we worry you might feel a little hurt about the manner in which you have found out about this. Know that if you feel that this was an abrupt way to find this out, we genuinely apologize. There was simply no way to talk to everyone we love before publishing this post–but we want you to know that the dialogue is open. If you have questions for us, please ask them. We are talking about this now. We won’t be weirded out if you ask us questions. And if you didn’t hear about this personally, it’s not because we don’t love or trust you. We tried to get to everyone, but just ran out of time.

Also, generally, please feel free to use the comment section to discuss this matter if you wish. However, remember that this is our lives you are talking about. Please feel free to say what you need to say, but we would ask that you be respectful of our decisions and the decisions of others if you decide to comment. And if you know someone who could benefit from this post, please share it. You can click share in the upper corner or down below. We want this post to reach anybody it could potentially help.

In closing, when talking to some friends about our situation in preparation for this post, one of them said “It’s almost like we’ve encountered a real live Unicorn!” She was joking of course. She was just saying that they were talking to something that not many encounter. A mythical creature. Someone who is gay, Mormon and married. And then as we told new friends about ourselves in preparation for this post, we told them we were initiating them into “Club Unicorn” because they had now seen something mythical with their very own eyes.

I now extend that invitation to every one of you. I am not a myth. I am real.

I cordially welcome you as the newest member of Club Unicorn.

Filed Under: All Stories, Gender, Religion

Obama vs. Catholic Church

May 28, 2012 By Editor 1 Comment

President Barack Hussein Obama’s open war on Christianity was officially launched less than three months into his presidency on April 15, 2009, when he insisted that the gold “IHS” monograms for the name of Christ be covered up with black painted plywood in Gaston Hall at the Catholic church’s Georgetown University, where he delivered a speech on economics. Didn’t that very thing happen in “Damien: Omen II”?

Of course, Barack Obama has always been hostile toward Christianity, and Christian principles, championing anti-Christian causes like gay marriage (although he flipped against it for a few years to get elected, then recently flipped back to rally his base), abortion (which has eliminated tens of millions of American blacks from our population), the poverty and servitude of debt and the government dole, and general principles of immorality (yes, Christianity teaches virtue and honesty). Although he claims to be Christian, when it serves him, his professed brand of “Christianity” is a Black Liberation Theology, which has its roots in Marxism–an anti-Christian philosophy.

Then there was the contrived “war on women” that Obama declared was extant in the conservative camp. Of course, “pro-woman” according to the left necessarily means anti-baby (kill them where they live), anti-child, anti-marriage, anti-family, and anti-virtue (a characteristic becoming of both sexes, but a 4-letter-word to the left). Stay at home mothers “haven’t worked a day in their lives” according to those in the Obama camp, and are unworthy of inclusion in a serious discussion of what women desire in America. Ms. Fluke was paraded out as the poster child for women who demand that the government provide free contraceptives for their extramarital, recreational sex. If conservatives feel that the open availability of contraceptives is sufficient for women, then that just shows how anti-woman they are, according to the Obama camp, because American taxpayers should be burdened with the costs of extramarital recreational sex for law students and other leftist activists who no longer believe in personal virtue before marriage. If Rush Limbaugh dares enumerate the type of women that flaunt premarital recreational sex, then he is necessarily a bigot. How completely Orwellian.

Most recently, when the Catholic Church declared that it was abhorrent to their religious beliefs and practices to provide birth control to Catholic Church employees, as mandated under Obamacare, the administration told them to sit down and shut the hell up, because Obama decides what the church will do, not God and his word. The church has filed suit against the administration, as have the majority of the states in the union who have received similar abuse by a power-mongering administration run amok.

The president and his anti-Christian cronies have done everything they set out to do, and the constitutionality of their acts will be weighed in the balance by Article III courts. The left has waged war against Christianity for several decades, chipping away at the First Amendment with every prohibition of free exercise.  Now, they are attacking actual establishments of religion, taking on the largest in the country, with over 60 million members. For those on the left who have no idea where the terms “free exercise” and “establishment of religion” come from, let us provide a brief lesson in Constitutional law:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” First Amendment to the Constitution.

POTUS is not the PONTIFF. The federal government has overreached–again–and its time they got their wings clipped. We urge all Catholics, and all other Christians to vote against Obama’s anti-Christian rampage in the upcoming elections.

PUBIUS

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics, Religion

Is Romney’s Religion a Problem?

May 19, 2012 By Editor Leave a Comment

Although most political commentators seem to agree that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith is an off-limits issue in the campaign, there is a definite undercurrent that it could become problematic for him, perhaps in the Christian-fundamentalist “Bible Belt,” or especially if the Democratic media hit squads ignore the “faith” advice of cooler heads and decide to begin strafing the nominee on their own. The backlash risk is one they seem more willing to take with each passing week.

Is the faith of a candidate really an issue that can, or should be considered when deciding fitness for office? In fact, if a belief system takes its possessor too far afield from the beliefs of the average American voter, then it can have an impact (“I was born a snake handler, and I’ll die a snake handler!” Moe Szyslak).

The truth is that the subject of religious faith is of itself a minefield, and must be gingerly navigated under the best of circumstances. Even among those who consider themselves to be  Christian, the traditional majority religion of our nation, serious doctrinal divisions exist between the various denominations, and were we to begin throwing epithets at every Christian church that believes differently than our own, a bloody civil war would be the inevitable result.

It used to be that the Mormon Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—or LDS for short) was thought by some to be non Christian, or a cult. Indeed, a review of the literature of “competing” churches reveals that many Christian ministries in the Bible Belt launched massive campaigns against the LDS faith, printing millions of tracts warning their parishioners not to talk to the Mormons. In retrospect it appears that this assault had more to do with massive numbers of their congregations converting to the LDS faith than actual cult or non Christian beliefs. The LDS Church is now the 4th largest Christian denomination in the U.S., and most of those converted from other Christian churches. In the 19th Century American Christian mobs likewise persecuted the early Mormons, murdering them and their leaders, stealing their land and property, raping their wives and daughters, and finally driving them out of the country into the far west where they settled, and built an empire. It was not America’s finest hour.

So what are some aspects of Mormonism that give pause to some Christian ministers? Are there Mormon doctrines that are repugnant to Biblical teachings? As all may know, theology is often a matter of biblical interpretation. For instance, in Roman Catholic theology (the largest American Christian denomination with nearly 70 million members), the doctrine of transubstantiation tells us that in the Eucharist, the substance of wheat bread and grape wine changes into the substance of the body and the blood of Jesus Christ, literally, not figuratively, while all that is accessible to the senses remains unchanged. Is this doctrine true? Does the wheat wafer actually, literally become the physical body of Jesus Christ, the crucified and resurrected Savior? Does the wine actually and literally become the physical blood of Christ? Do Catholics truly eat Christ’s body, and drink his blood during the Eucharist? I do not speculate about the accuracy of the doctrine, but it does set the benchmark by which we can measure the doctrines of other Christian churches, even the LDS Church. Faith is personal, and because it deals with matters that come to individuals spiritually, we are hard pressed to judge their reality until they come to us as well.

The editors have used some very conventional tools to survey the tenets of the LDS religion. We have also checked these tenets against biblical teachings.

What do Mormons believe? Ask one. Go to their website. Read the Book of Mormon. Consider their “I’m a Mormon” ads. They have strong family ties. They believe that God the Father is the Supreme Being and creator. They believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and that through the atonement he saved all humanity from death. They believe that sex is reserved for marriage. They treat their bodies like temples and don’t partake of harmful substances. They believe in baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. They believe in repentance, and forgiveness. They believe in the resurrection. They believe in communicating with God though the Holy Ghost. They believe in the gifts of the Spirit, including faith, revelation and prophecy. They believe in eventual judgment for unrepentant acts committed against others. They believe in being good neighbors and faithful friends. They believe in education and hard work. They believe in sharing the gospel and a better style of life and send tens of thousands of their young adults on 2 year missions every year.

Are these beliefs biblical? Despite any personal interpretations, we are hard-pressed to find doctrines that are alien or repugnant to the holy writ. Others may interpret biblical passages differently than the Mormons at times, but all the doctrines are present in the Bible. We could even say that the doctrine of transubstantiation is present in the Bible, if one accepts the Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.” Matthew 26:26

So who has knelt before the priest to eat the literal body of Jesus Christ? John F. Kennedy, Rick Santorum, Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich, Bobby Jindal, Clarence Thomas, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Andrew Cuomo, Ted Kennedy, Steve King, Jerry Brown, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Nick Clooney, John Kerry, Sargent Shriver, Pat Toomey, Al D’Amato, Geraldine Ferraro, Rudy Giuliani, Carol Moseley Braun, Ken Salazar, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, Loretta Sanchez, Joe Manchin, Dan Aykroyd, Alan Alda, Samuel Alito, Anne Bancroft, William Brennan Jr., Nicolas Cage, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Frank Capra, Gary Cooper, Francis Ford Coppola, Bing Crosby, Marie Curie, Leonardo da Vinci, Robert De Niro, Faye Dunaway, Clark Gable, Galileo Galilei, Alec Guinness, Arlo Guthrie, Nicole Kidman, Bill Maher, Bill Murray, Napoleon, Robert Novak, Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino, Susan Sarandon, Antonin Scalia, Martin Sheen, Sylvester Stallone, Jon Voight, Spencer Tracy, John Travolta, Andy Warhol, James Woods, and even Oscar Wilde, to name only a few.

Publius

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Religion

The Stem Cell War is Over

May 16, 2012 By Editor 1 Comment

Those who read George Bush’s Decision Points may have been interested to learn that up until the 9/11 attacks the most important issue facing his administration in his opinion was stem cell policy.

The stem cell problem is rooted in the abortion issue. Liberals support embryonic stem cell research because it bolsters their argument that abortion is socially desirable. President Bush echoed the conservative dilemma as he wrestled with the cost/benefits analysis of stem cell research—at what cost would stem cell benefits come?

President Bush wrote that he labored over the issue, holding out hope that adult stem cells (non-embryonic) would become available and the problems inherent in embryonic stem cells would become irrelevant.

According to Roger Nocera, M.D., that day has arrived. In his book Cells That Heal Us From Cradle To Grave: A Quantum Leap in Medical Science (Amazon ebook), Dr. Nocera reveals that useable adult stem cells were discovered in 2003 and have been used to treat serious diseases in clinics around the world since then.

Although Dr. Nocera is a self-described liberal Democrat who supports Roe v. Wade, and admits in the book that the Democrats have been backing the wrong horse on the stem cell issue, because of their misguided devotion to the abortion issue.

The completely naturally occurring adult stem cell discovered in 2003 has been utilized in treatments in offshore clinics—offshore, because stem cell treatment is currently banned by the FDA. This newly discovered adult stem cell is found stored in our own body fat or is left in umbilical cords and thrown out as bio waste.

Many incurable diseases, conditions and injuries are being cured with simple treatments. One of my favorite cases is a middle-aged doctor who needed a heart transplant and would die within a few more months, and was given a simple I.V. with these Healing Cells, and his heart is now as good as new.

This new technology completely vindicates conservatives, and it WILL LOWER HEALTH CARE costs dramatically . . . by cheaply healing serious conditions that currently drag on for years, requiring expensive drugs and medical care.

Publius

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Entitlement, Ethics, Religion, Sci-Tech

A Failure to Excommunicate

May 16, 2012 By Editor 6 Comments

It shouldn’t surprise many people that most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly referred to as Mormons, are politically conservative. Indeed, LDS Church members believe that the Constitution of the United States is a divinely inspired document, and that adherence to its original meaning constitutes living according to God’s will. Church members adhere to a strict code of morality, which includes not just matters of sex outside of marriage, but extends to personal areas such as how they dress in public, what they view, and even what they ingest into their bodies.

Much whispering behind the scenes has been accumulating because GOP Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney is not only a high profile Mormon, but a very dedicated member and leader of the church. While Romney endures off-mic rumor and innuendo for his membership in the LDS Church, the arguably second most powerful politician in the nation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, receives not an utterance about his lifelong membership in the same church.

What is the difference between Mitt Romney and Harry Reid? Politically speaking, the two couldn’t be further apart on almost every issue. On religious and moral issues, however, some might suggest they are kindred spirits—not most LDS Church members, but others might.

In fact, much of what Harry Reid espouses in his public life is repugnant to LDS-Christian doctrine. High taxes, exorbitant debt, burdensome governmental intrusion and regulation into the lives of citizens, socialistic schemes, anti-family policies, welfare dependence, the funding of anti-Christian arts, organizations and lifestyles are only the tip of a burgeoning and murky iceberg that is growing exponentially beneath the waters of American society under the leadership of Reid and his hard left associates.

So how does Harry Reid justify his political views and his divergence from the basic tenets of Mormonism? “I don’t believe in abortion,” is his explanation.

That’s it? He doesn’t support abortion in his political life?

I disagree that Harry Reid’s stated opposition to abortion is enough to save him (in a secular or religious way). Like congressmen who attach their pork barrel projects to bills they know will pass without their votes then quietly vote against them so they can claim fiscal responsibility while collecting campaign contributions for success at “bringing home the bacon,” Harry Reid is only fooling himself that he is a good LDS Church member.

There is a reason that most LDS Church members are conservative. It is a question of morality and personal liberty for them. Harry Reid has supported every anti-American, anti-family, anti-decency piece of legislation that has come down the pike. He is responsible for nearly every dollar of the $15.7 trillion debt—and in case he doesn’t understand it, debt robs liberty and creates poverty. Although he personally votes against direct abortion legislation, he supports candidates and elected officials whom he knows will support it—and that’s supporting it.

So what is the real difference between Mitt Romney and Harry Reid regarding their membership in the LDS Church? On the surface, anyway, the difference is that Romney reflects his religious values in his policies while Reid utterly tramples them in his.

For Harry Reid, and all of those who make a pretense of following Judeo-Christian principles while leading our nation, and indeed, the Western world down a path of fiscal and moral destruction, let me share a scripture that you might recognize, and find helpful in your future career.

“I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot: I would you were cold or hot. So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.” Revelation 3:15-16.

Publius

Filed Under: All Stories, Ethics, Religion

Obama Comes Out

May 15, 2012 By Editor Leave a Comment

Pundits scratched their heads at Vice President Joe Biden’s unexpected declaration of support for gay marriage. In the following days speculation grew that the White House was telegraphing a major policy shift announcement. For anyone who was paying attention or who cared to look at the record, President Obama has never been opposed to alternate lifestyle trends, and has specifically been a consistent supporter of gay “rights,” championing the end of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the U.S. military.

In fact, pressure has been building for some time in the President’s base as a result of his reluctance to come out of the closet on the gay marriage issue. On Wednesday, President Obama announced during an ABC television interview, that he now supports gay marriage. Newsweek magazine, which has featured Obama on several of its covers, this week added a rainbow halo, canonizing him with the epithet “THE FIRST GAY PRESIDENT.”

Predictably, within days of making his position clear on the issue the President has received a deluge of campaign contributions from his hard left supporters—who were overtly withholding funding support pending his public announcement. Starting with the $40,000 per plate Hollywood bash hosted by George Clooney, the re-election campaign has garnered a quick $21 million resulting directly from the President’s change of public position on gay marriage.

The President insists that he has not flip-flopped on gay marriage, but has simply “evolved” his views. Regardless of the President’s assertions on his reasons for changing his stance, a CBS/New York Times poll reflects that American voters are ignoring contrived social issues coming out of the White House, and that 62 percent believe that the economy is the pivotal issue in this election—an issue that the President is apparently trying to obscure with a recent flurry of social issues discussions.

While the President is calling on the congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, GOP challenger Mitt Romney has confirmed his agreement with the American people that marriage is between a single man and a single woman. A full 67 percent of Americans believe the President’s revelation on his gay marriage views is politically motivated; a clear attempt to gather support and money. Over 25 percent of those polled say that the President’s announcement has caused them to reconsider their support of his re-election.

Will the President’s obvious pandering to the far left hurt his re-election chances? The CBS/New York Times poll shows Mitt Romney pulling ahead in what has been a close race. Why is the President’s campaign flailing? It could be that Christian African-Americans who are strongly opposed to gay lifestyles and other issues of morality are beginning to reassess their carte blanche endorsement of the man who promised them so much, and has delivered nothing but skyrocketing unemployment in their families and neighborhoods.

Publius

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics, Gender, Religion

« Previous Page

Federalist Press Dispatch

Get breaking political news, investigations, and uncensored analysis delivered directly to your inbox.

Please wait...

Thank you for subscribing to the Federalist Press Dispatch.

Get free info to help your life

Get free info to help your life

Simple bite-sized guides for life, money, civics, and more . . . because some stuff school just didn’t cover.

Brit Axton Mysteries Series

Brit Axton Mysteries Series

Brit Axton Mysteries is a series of young adult adventure novels that lead young Brit Axton and her friends on whirlwind adventures to uncover hidden secrets and long lost treasures.

Byrna Non-lethal Self Protection

Byrna Non-lethal Self Protection

Byrna offers non-lethal self protection at an affordable price. Watch the short video, or click to learn more!

Understanding Cryptocurrency: Essentials for Building Wealth in Digital Currency

Understanding Cryptocurrency: Essentials for Building Wealth in Digital Currency

Understanding Cryptocurrency serves as a definitive guide for novice investors looking to understand the world of cryptocurrency and harness its potential for financial growth and prosperity.

Real Estate Wealth Strategies During High Inflation

Real Estate Wealth Strategies During High Inflation

Real Estate Wealth Strategies During High Inflation is a comprehensive guide on navigating the real estate market, offering strategies and insights for successful investing, during high inflation and interest rates.

Follow us

  • parler
  • welcome-widgets-menus
  • facebook
  • envato

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

Economy

The Left’s Poverty Industry Nobody Wants to Talk About

‘Rules for Radicals’ and the Socialist March Through America’s Institutions

Stephen Colbert’s Final Curtain: When Late Night Became Political Therapy Instead of Comedy

Elections

The SPLC and the Profits of Division

Europe Is Finally Learning the Lesson Trump Tried to Teach

Trump Was Right To Ask — Georgia’s Election Questions Didn’t Disappear, They Got Louder

Foreign

Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill Passes Congress in Landmark Victory

Trump’s Decisive Strike: Ending Iran’s Nuclear Threat and Exposing Decades of Diplomatic Failure

BREAKING: President Trump Orders Devastating Airstrikes on Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Facilities in Historic Preemptive Strike

Crime

Trump Was Right To Ask — Georgia’s Election Questions Didn’t Disappear, They Got Louder

How Many More Victims of Lethal Compassion?

‘Rules for Radicals’ and the Socialist March Through America’s Institutions

Science Tech

UFO Disclosure Has Crossed the Line From Fringe to Official Reality

Trump Administration Releases Second UFO Tranche — and One File Contains 209 Reports Near a Secret U.S. Facility

Fed Appeals Court Judge Stayed Silent for Decades. Now Witnesses Beginning to Talk.

Reader Responses

  • Linda Livaudais on Trump’s UFO Disclosure Has Changed the Conversation — But Not Yet Answered the Biggest Question
  • T059736 on Trump and Musk Announce Plans to Shut Down USAID
  • C.Josef.D on ‘Pay to Play’ at Clinton Foundation Under Investigation
  • John D Cole on Biden Says ‘You ain’t black’ If You Don’t Vote for Him
  • Ed on U.S. Attorney Huber Moving to Indict Clintons and Others

Copyright © 2026 by Federalist Press · All rights reserved · Website design by RoadRunner CRM · Content Wiriting by GhostWriter · Log in